Municipal Corporation, Akola vs Shridhar Raibhan Shirsat

R.K. Deshpande, J.—The Labour Court has answered the Reference IDA No. 10 of 2005 in the affirmative, holding that the termination of the respondent from service as ''Coolie'' with effect from 9th May, 2000 was illegal and in contravention of sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court, therefore, directed the reinstatement of the employee with continuity in service and full back wages. The employer Municipal Council is, therefore, before this Court in this writ petition.

The matter was called out on 31.3.2015. None appeared for the parties. It was adjourned. Today also none appears for the parties. I have gone through the judgment delivered by the Labour Court.

The question of continuous service rendered by the respondents employee from February, 1992 to 9th May, 2000 i.e. the date of termination from service is not disputed. The finding is recorded by the Labour Court that the respondent employee completed continuous service of 240 days preceding the date of his termination. There was non-compliance of section 25-F and therefore, the direction to reinstate him with continuity and full back wages has been issued. This Court has not stayed the order directing reinstatement in service, but only the order of payment of backwages was stayed. In view of this, the respondent-employee is presumed to be in service.

It is always open for the employer to retrench the employee after following the provisions of law including the provisions of sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. The judgment and order impugned does not prevent the employer from retrenching the service of the employee by following the procedure prescribed in law. The order of reinstatement and continuity in service passed by the Reference Court, therefore, does not call for any interference. So far as the payment of back wages is concerned, the termination was effected in the year 2000 and the Reference seems to have been registered in the year 2005. There is no pleading and evidence on record to show that the respondent-employee was not gainfully employed during the pendency of proceedings, after the retrenchment from service. In view of this, the order of payment of backwages cannot be sustained. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed. The judgment and order dated 20.1.2007 passed by the Labour Court in Reference IDA No. 10 of 2005 is hereby quashed and set aside only to, the extent it directs the payment of backwages. The order directing reinstatement with continuity in service does not call for any interference. Needless to say that it is always open for the employer to retrench the employee after following due process of law under section 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to cost.